Decorating style reminiscent of the late Rococovfefe period

  • Thread starter Thread starter altmin
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 247
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
The construction of the grand ballroom is, on balance, a positive addition to the White House grounds. Currently, the East Wing only can hold 200 people for State Dinners and other formal events. That's way to small. Please recall, as one example, the large State Dinner Obama hosted (for India I believe) where it had to be under tents assembled on the lawn. It rained, forcing the staff to place wooden flooring and walkways to prevent the guests from sinking in the muck. It was a muddy mess certainly not suited for entertaining at the official residence for the President of the United States. A grander, and larger entertainment space is badly needed for the White House. Plus, holding large State Dinners outside is a much larger security threat than the controlled, indoor environment of a ballroom designed to protect its guests.

There's nothing historically significant about the East Wing - which was constructed in the 1940s. In fact, the purpose of constructing the second floor was to cover the bomb shelter for the President constructed in WWII. Trump has hired respected architects to design the ballroom to be in character of the historic White House. The design of the ballroom, featuring huge glass (bullet proof) windows is impressive. I agree it's probably a tad large for the grounds but trees and landscaping can somewhat mitigate this issue. The excessive gold, Rococo interior that Trump loves can be easily toned down in the future in both the interior of the ballroom and in the Oval.

My prediction is that this new ballroom will come to be a cherished venue by future White Houses and the public at large. Remember how the Parisians, at first, HATED the Eiffel Tower and I.M. Pei's pyramid at the Louvre and now these are Parisian landmarks. Trump's Ballroom will be the same once the hatred of Trump by the left eventually fades in the future (like Reagan).
 
Ramrouser said:
The construction of the grand ballroom is, on balance, a positive addition to the White House grounds. Currently, the East Wing only can hold 200 people for State Dinners and other formal events. That's way to small. Please recall, as one example, the large State Dinner Obama hosted (for India I believe) where it had to be under tents assembled on the lawn. It rained, forcing the staff to place wooden flooring and walkways to prevent the guests from sinking in the muck. It was a muddy mess certainly not suited for entertaining at the official residence for the President of the United States. A grander, and larger entertainment space is badly needed for the White House. Plus, holding large State Dinners outside is a much larger security threat than the controlled, indoor environment of a ballroom designed to protect its guests.

There's nothing historically significant about the East Wing - which was constructed in the 1940s. In fact, the purpose of constructing the second floor was to cover the bomb shelter for the President constructed in WWII. Trump has hired respected architects to design the ballroom to be in character of the historic White House. The design of the ballroom, featuring huge glass (bullet proof) windows is impressive. I agree it's probably a tad large for the grounds but trees and landscaping can somewhat mitigate this issue. The excessive gold, Rococo interior that Trump loves can be easily toned down in the future in both the interior of the ballroom and in the Oval.

My prediction is that this new ballroom will come to be a cherished venue by future White Houses and the public at large. Remember how the Parisians, at first, HATED the Eiffel Tower and I.M. Pei's pyramid at the Louvre and now these are Parisian landmarks. Trump's Ballroom will be the same once the hatred of Trump by the left eventually fades in the future (like Reagan).
Click to expand...

GFY
 
Ramrouser said:
The construction of the grand ballroom is, on balance, a positive addition to the White House grounds. Currently, the East Wing only can hold 200 people for State Dinners and other formal events. That's way to small. Please recall, as one example, the large State Dinner Obama hosted (for India I believe) where it had to be under tents assembled on the lawn. It rained, forcing the staff to place wooden flooring and walkways to prevent the guests from sinking in the muck. It was a muddy mess certainly not suited for entertaining at the official residence for the President of the United States. A grander, and larger entertainment space is badly needed for the White House. Plus, holding large State Dinners outside is a much larger security threat than the controlled, indoor environment of a ballroom designed to protect its guests.

There's nothing historically significant about the East Wing - which was constructed in the 1940s. In fact, the purpose of constructing the second floor was to cover the bomb shelter for the President constructed in WWII. Trump has hired respected architects to design the ballroom to be in character of the historic White House. The design of the ballroom, featuring huge glass (bullet proof) windows is impressive. I agree it's probably a tad large for the grounds but trees and landscaping can somewhat mitigate this issue. The excessive gold, Rococo interior that Trump loves can be easily toned down in the future in both the interior of the ballroom and in the Oval.

My prediction is that this new ballroom will come to be a cherished venue by future White Houses and the public at large. Remember how the Parisians, at first, HATED the Eiffel Tower and I.M. Pei's pyramid at the Louvre and now these are Parisian landmarks. Trump's Ballroom will be the same once the hatred of Trump by the left eventually fades in the future (like Reagan).
Click to expand...
Cut and pasted, from where, exactly?
 
Ramrouser said:
The construction of the grand ballroom is, on balance, a positive addition to the White House grounds. Currently, the East Wing only can hold 200 people for State Dinners and other formal events. That's way to small. Please recall, as one example, the large State Dinner Obama hosted (for India I believe) where it had to be under tents assembled on the lawn. It rained, forcing the staff to place wooden flooring and walkways to prevent the guests from sinking in the muck. It was a muddy mess certainly not suited for entertaining at the official residence for the President of the United States. A grander, and larger entertainment space is badly needed for the White House. Plus, holding large State Dinners outside is a much larger security threat than the controlled, indoor environment of a ballroom designed to protect its guests.

There's nothing historically significant about the East Wing - which was constructed in the 1940s. In fact, the purpose of constructing the second floor was to cover the bomb shelter for the President constructed in WWII. Trump has hired respected architects to design the ballroom to be in character of the historic White House. The design of the ballroom, featuring huge glass (bullet proof) windows is impressive. I agree it's probably a tad large for the grounds but trees and landscaping can somewhat mitigate this issue. The excessive gold, Rococo interior that Trump loves can be easily toned down in the future in both the interior of the ballroom and in the Oval.

My prediction is that this new ballroom will come to be a cherished venue by future White Houses and the public at large. Remember how the Parisians, at first, HATED the Eiffel Tower and I.M. Pei's pyramid at the Louvre and now these are Parisian landmarks. Trump's Ballroom will be the same once the hatred of Trump by the left eventually fades in the future (like Reagan).
Click to expand...
Seriously ?

What if Trump decided now that I have illegally gotten away with destroying some of the White House, I can now destroy the rest of the White House to remake it a gaudy tacky Trump palace ?

No matter, I'm sure you would have cheered Obama if he had destroyed the East Wing and installed the Obama Ballroom.

Do you MAGAs have no red line ?
 
Ramrouser said:
The construction of the grand ballroom is, on balance, a positive addition to the White House grounds. Currently, the East Wing only can hold 200 people for State Dinners and other formal events. That's way to small. Please recall, as one example, the large State Dinner Obama hosted (for India I believe) where it had to be under tents assembled on the lawn. It rained, forcing the staff to place wooden flooring and walkways to prevent the guests from sinking in the muck. It was a muddy mess certainly not suited for entertaining at the official residence for the President of the United States. A grander, and larger entertainment space is badly needed for the White House. Plus, holding large State Dinners outside is a much larger security threat than the controlled, indoor environment of a ballroom designed to protect its guests.

There's nothing historically significant about the East Wing - which was constructed in the 1940s. In fact, the purpose of constructing the second floor was to cover the bomb shelter for the President constructed in WWII. Trump has hired respected architects to design the ballroom to be in character of the historic White House. The design of the ballroom, featuring huge glass (bullet proof) windows is impressive. I agree it's probably a tad large for the grounds but trees and landscaping can somewhat mitigate this issue. The excessive gold, Rococo interior that Trump loves can be easily toned down in the future in both the interior of the ballroom and in the Oval.

My prediction is that this new ballroom will come to be a cherished venue by future White Houses and the public at large. Remember how the Parisians, at first, HATED the Eiffel Tower and I.M. Pei's pyramid at the Louvre and now these are Parisian landmarks. Trump's Ballroom will be the same once the hatred of Trump by the left eventually fades in the future (like Reagan).
Click to expand...
It does not fit aesthetically with the rest of the complex. But that is beside the point.

Any major change to the White House should be done in consultation with Congress and the relevant federal agencies - just like every other renovation in the past.

But Trump thinks he is a king who can do whatever he wants without consulting with any other part of government.

Worse still, he lied about it.
 
LeoBloom said:
Maybe once the irrational glorification of the Trump by the right fades, they will realize how idiotic and corrupt this is.

What am I saying - their irrational deification of Trump will never fade.
Click to expand...
Yep. I'm not sure what happens to make someone see this --

(1) a president tearing down 1/3 of the White House,
(2) without letting anybody, including Congress or the American people, know that's about to happen,
(3) in order to build a giant gilded ballroom,
(4) designed by unknown people,
(5) to be built by unknown people,
(6) paid for by companies and individuals seeking influence with his administration,
(7) without getting any input from Congress, historical preservation groups, architectural review boards, etc.,

and conclude, "this is how I want my government to work!!!"
 
StrangePackage said:
Seriously. Where did you cut and paste it from?

You've been posting here for years. You think we can't tell?
Click to expand...
$1,000 if you can prove it. It shouldn't be that hard if I, in fact, cut and pasted an article on this subject off the internet or AI. Nothing is copied from anywhere.
 
Ramrouser said:
The construction of the grand ballroom is, on balance, a positive addition to the White House grounds. Currently, the East Wing only can hold 200 people for State Dinners and other formal events. That's way to small. Please recall, as one example, the large State Dinner Obama hosted (for India I believe) where it had to be under tents assembled on the lawn. It rained, forcing the staff to place wooden flooring and walkways to prevent the guests from sinking in the muck. It was a muddy mess certainly not suited for entertaining at the official residence for the President of the United States. A grander, and larger entertainment space is badly needed for the White House. Plus, holding large State Dinners outside is a much larger security threat than the controlled, indoor environment of a ballroom designed to protect its guests.

There's nothing historically significant about the East Wing - which was constructed in the 1940s. In fact, the purpose of constructing the second floor was to cover the bomb shelter for the President constructed in WWII. Trump has hired respected architects to design the ballroom to be in character of the historic White House. The design of the ballroom, featuring huge glass (bullet proof) windows is impressive. I agree it's probably a tad large for the grounds but trees and landscaping can somewhat mitigate this issue. The excessive gold, Rococo interior that Trump loves can be easily toned down in the future in both the interior of the ballroom and in the Oval.

My prediction is that this new ballroom will come to be a cherished venue by future White Houses and the public at large. Remember how the Parisians, at first, HATED the Eiffel Tower and I.M. Pei's pyramid at the Louvre and now these are Parisian landmarks. Trump's Ballroom will be the same once the hatred of Trump by the left eventually fades in the future (like Reagan).
Click to expand...
You have absolutely no shame.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top